Steve King: How did white supremacist become offensive?

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2019, 10:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: For using words that some people could misinterpret.

So she apologized because of other folks thoughts?

Folks have to decide if her words were or were not intended to slur the Jew. That's all they have to do. Once a person answers that question for themselves then they have to decide if they are going to support it, excuse it, deny it, or ignore it.

IMO her words were said to slur the Jew, but many have said things to slur the Muslim.  

[hollodero]

(02-16-2019, 12:18 AM)Dill Wrote: Omar condemns "evil doings" of Israel, as do I.  I think it's just factually wrong to claim Israel has "hypnotized the world" since most of the world supports, for example, UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and (more recenlty) 2334.  But I don't find it plainly anti-semitic.

Many followers will have a different (meaning: more plainly anti-semitic) take and she knows it.

(02-16-2019, 12:18 AM)Dill Wrote: "It's all about the Benjamin's" means that campaign money explains the Israel lobby's success in the U.S.

Sure, but the term still is pretty specific. Benjamin, sounds pretty Jewish. That's a certain type of money source that is addressed there, in a bit derogatory fashion.
I think an apology is good enough on that one, but for me there's a flavor. Admittedly, I think someone Islamic needs to be extra careful on that topic.

(02-16-2019, 12:18 AM)Dill Wrote: What do you make of all these Republican party adds? No unapologetic president calling for THEM to step down.

Well, that is whataboutism.
Secondly, most of these folks are way "worse", sure, all those sycophants that support Trump through this emergency travesty have no honor. And they support someone quite racist (though I wouldn't say anti-semitic, specifically), and this was obvious as soon as Trump claimed that judge with the Spanish name can't possibly judge him fairly. And encouraged a crowd to boo said judge on the grounds of said Mexican sounding name. All that held their nose through this and many other instances and stood silent are at moral fault.
Still, whataboutism.

And I'm certain the further right parts of the republican party have some shady spots here and there. As for Trump being anti-semitic, I do not see it really. He's of course unbearably ignorant and indifferent towards the topic and takes support from Nazis without a frown. But I did not see him slur a Jewish person and he was quite nice to Jews worldwide when giving the embassy to Jerusalem.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2019, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So she apologized because of other folks thoughts?

Folks have to decide if her words were or were not intended to slur the Jew. That's all they have to do. Once a person answers that question for themselves then they have to decide if they are going to support it, excuse it, deny it, or ignore it.

IMO her words were said to slur the Jew, but many have said things to slur the Muslim.  

Why do you use the term "slur"?  Is there a specific reason for that?

If I complain about the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and the bad things I think they are doing is that "slurring" the fossil fuel industry?

Just want to make sure we are on the same page here before I address your comments.

[fredtoast]

(02-16-2019, 12:31 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks have to decide if her words were or were not intended to slur the Jew. That's all they have to do.

I don't believe Oman ever said anything about "the Jew".  All of her comments are about "Isreal".  There are lots of Jews who disagree with what Isreal is doing.  But unfortunately that fact does not fit into the speaking points of the right wing echo chamber.

[Dill]

(02-16-2019, 01:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: Many followers will have a different (meaning: more plainly anti-semitic) take and she knows it.

Sure, but the term still is pretty specific. Benjamin, sounds pretty Jewish. That's a certain type of money source that is addressed there, in a bit derogatory fashion.
I think an apology is good enough on that one, but for me there's a flavor. Admittedly, I think someone Islamic needs to be extra careful on that topic.

A quick note in response:

"Benjamin" is a Jewish name for sure, but also take by many Christian Anglos, among them one of the U.S. Founding Fathers--Benjamin Franklin.
His image appears on our 100 bill.


Which is one way his name has made its way into American pop culture, as it becomes a metonym for money.  Omar is quoting a rap lyric when she says "It's all about the Benjamins."   If a Muslim must be "extra careful" discussing "the Benjamins" that indicates the terrain of social discourse is tilted somewhat against them.

This leads us back to the question of whether and how one can criticize the Israel lobby in the U.S.--especially the critique turns around donations and other monetary favors--without being tagged an anti-semite.

(02-16-2019, 01:01 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, that is whataboutism.
Secondly, most of these folks are way "worse", sure, all those sycophants that support Trump through this emergency travesty have no honor. And they support someone quite racist (though I wouldn't say anti-semitic, specifically), and this was obvious as soon as Trump claimed that judge with the Spanish name can't possibly judge him fairly. And encouraged a crowd to boo said judge on the grounds of said Mexican sounding name. All that held their nose through this and many other instances and stood silent are at moral fault.
Still, whataboutism.

Another quick note: the images of Republican ads with money grabbing Jews leads up to a question:

Nottawhatabout question--could Omar's status as a Muslim of Palestinian heritage, who is likely to contest a Republican sponsored bill which would punish those who boycott Israel, have something to do with the sudden storm of outrage about anti-semitism?  Could that be why the storm comes down on her as it has not on these other individuals?

The Republican ads then establish a comparative baseline against which to judge the response to Omar. Without that baseline I don't see how we can tell whether the response to her "antitsemitism" is normal, what anyone would be subjected to, or more a consequences of special circumstances--her religion and an impending bill.

Can you think of another way of establishing a point about differing magnitudes of response?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2019, 04:37 PM)Dill Wrote: This leads us back to the question of whether and how one can criticize the Israel lobby in the U.S.--especially the critique turns around donations and other monetary favors--without being tagged an anti-semite.  


Another quick note: the images of Republican ads with money grabbing Jews leads up to a question:

Nottawhatabout question--could Omar's status as a Muslim of Palestinian heritage, who is likely to contest a Republican sponsored bill which would punish those who boycott Israel, have something to do with the sudden storm of outrage about anti-semitism?  Could that be why the storm comes down on her as it has not on these other individuals?

The Republican ads then establish a comparative baseline against which to judge the response to Omar. Without that baseline I don't see how we can tell whether the response to her "antitsemitism" is normal, what anyone would be subjected to, or more a consequences of special circumstances--her religion and an impending bill.

Can you think of another way of establishing a point about differing magnitudes of response?

Post essentially says "I'm not engaging in whataboutism" while engaging in whataboutism.  God I love the internets.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2019, 04:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Post essentially says "I'm not engaging in whataboutism" while engaging in whataboutism.  God I love the internets.

To me "whataboutism" is simply pointing out the other side doing the exact same thing.  Pretty much people on both sides agree that it is bad when  a politician cheats on his wife or takes bribes even if he is on "their side".

But in this case it is a little different.  In order to define Oman as an anti-Semite first it has to be proven that her comments are clearly anti-Semitic with no other possible meaning.  So pointing out that the other side has done the exact same thing in this case is not about saying both sides are anti-Semitic.  Instead it is about proving that her comments were not anti-Semitic in the first place.

Since no one has condemned the comments of these Republicans as being anti-Semitic then that proves that Oman's comments were not anti-Semitic either.

[Dill]

(02-18-2019, 04:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Post essentially says "I'm not engaging in whataboutism" while engaging in whataboutism.  God I love the internets.

Quick way to establish that--explain how to make a point about comparative magnitude without comparison.

Hard to do if you can only offer impressions. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2019, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To me "whataboutism" is simply pointing out the other side doing the exact same thing.  Pretty much people on both sides agree that it is bad when  a politician cheats on his wife or takes bribes even if he is on "their side".

But in this case it is a little different.  In order to define Oman as an anti-Semite first it has to be proven that her comments are clearly anti-Semitic with no other possible meaning.  So pointing out that the other side has done the exact same thing in this case is not about saying both sides are anti-Semitic.  Instead it is about proving that her comments were not anti-Semitic in the first place.

Since no one has condemned the comments of these Republicans as being anti-Semitic then that proves that Oman's comments were not anti-Semitic either.

(02-18-2019, 05:07 PM)Dill Wrote: Quick way to establish that--explain how to make a point about comparative magnitude without comparison.

Hard to do if you can only offer impressions. 

Here's where you both fail.  If we were only having this discussion because of Omar's most recent tweet you'd both have a solid point.  Unfortunately, for you both, this is not the case.  When you have this tweet in your history;



your future tweets on this subject will be judged based on this history.  Now, if anyone else you're using to compare Omar's latest tweet to has a similar, obviously antisemitic, tweet in their history then feel free to compare away.  If they don't then prepare yourself to be, correctly, accused of whataboutery.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2019, 11:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Why do you use the term "slur"?  Is there a specific reason for that?

If I complain about the influence of the fossil fuel lobby and the bad things I think they are doing is that "slurring" the fossil fuel industry?

Just want to make sure we are on the same page here before I address your comments.

I use slur because I have a vocabulary and it is easier to type than an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo . Her comments were designed to insult. 

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2019, 05:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I use slur because I have a vocabulary and it is easier to type than an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo . Her comments were designed to insult. 

Okay.  Then her comments were no different than the ones I have made about the lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

Nothing anti-Semitic about them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  Then her comments were no different than the ones I have made about the lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

Nothing anti-Semitic about them.

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2019, 05:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's where you both fail.  If we were only having this discussion because of Omar's most recent tweet you'd both have a solid point.  Unfortunately, for you both, this is not the case.  When you have this tweet in your history;



your future tweets on this subject will be judged based on this history.  Now, if anyone else you're using to compare Omar's latest tweet to has a similar, obviously antisemitic, tweet in their history then feel free to compare away.  If they don't then prepare yourself to be, correctly, accused of whataboutery.

1.  I make the same comments about the lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry when they dupe the rubes into believing them.  Nothing anti-Semitic about them.

2.  Again, all of her comments criticize Israel, not the Jewish people.  She is railing against Zionism, not the Jewish religion.  There are Jews who agree with her that Zionism is wrong and perpetrates evil by oppressing the Palestinians.

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2019, 05:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay.  Then her comments were no different than the ones I have made about the lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.

Nothing anti-Semitic about them.

Sure. I don't think anyone one here will contest the fact that you slur people. 

[GMDino]

(02-18-2019, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure. I don't think anyone one here will contest the fact that you slur people. 

[Dill]

(02-18-2019, 04:56 PM)fredtoast Wrote: To me "whataboutism" is simply pointing out the other side doing the exact same thing.  Pretty much people on both sides agree that it is bad when  a politician cheats on his wife or takes bribes even if he is on "their side".

But in this case it is a little different.  In order to define Oman as an anti-Semite first it has to be proven that her comments are clearly anti-Semitic with no other possible meaning.  So pointing out that the other side has done the exact same thing in this case is not about saying both sides are anti-Semitic.  Instead it is about proving that her comments were not anti-Semitic in the first place.

Since no one has condemned the comments of these Republicans as being anti-Semitic then that proves that Oman's comments were not anti-Semitic either.

Or, it could prove they both were, just that it is selectively acknowledged in one case.  Whataboutery is deployed only for two reasons: to change the subject or to undermine another's higher moral ground.  I can't condemn you for smoking cigarettes when I smoke them too. 

The first part of my post indeed questions whether we should rush to judge Omar's comments antisemitic, though I grant the "hypnotized" remark might be.  Not clearly so, though.

But my second point calls attention to the disparity in magnitude of attack.  GOPs have clearly stepped over the line many times--especially in those ads with smiling Jews holding money.  My point is not to show that "they do it too so everyone shut up!"   It is to suggest that antisemitism might not really be the issue, the real concern of the GOP, when they level charges at a Freshman member of the opposing party who is Muslim and likely to vote against a bill they want.  In this environment, antisemitism can be weaponized to use against a Semitic person of the "wrong" religion. Someone who did not want to have that conversation might hold hard and fast to the "Whataboutery" charge.

Here is a good way to think about whataboutism, in lawyerly terms.

Imagine you are falsely accused of stealing a car.  You come to court and your lawyer opens your defense by saying.  Why is everyone complaining about Fredtoast stealing a car?  Lots of people steal cars in our community. What about Joe blow, the police chief's cousin? He has stolen three!

You'd quickly want to take over you own defense, knowing however many cars Joe has stolen, none of that gets YOU off the hook.  You need to establish that 15 witnesses place you in a restaurant at the time of the crime, or something like that.  You see immediately how that kind of whataboutism won't work in a court room, where procedures and protocols of evidence already determine what is relevant.  But there is little of that in the public sphere, where whataboutism works frequently to divert or to equivocate. 

On the other hand, if a police detective accuses you of stealing a car, and you maintain that you haven't stolen one but Joe Blow has. From the detective's perspective, that is not really whataboutism if you know Joe did steal a car--even if you did actually steal a car too.  There are standpoints from which we assess the performance of two or more sides of some factual/ethical issue, sometimes to exonerate one or to condemn both.  The trick is to understand the in which context and to what end a comparison is made.  Otherwise all comparative analyses are invalid.

(Another example, imagine having to argue relevant legal precedents in a court.  Similar comparison would be required to determine whether some litigant could legitimately cite one or not. Dissenting briefs often turn around issues like this.)

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2019, 05:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure. I don't think anyone one here will contest the fact that you slur people. 

Same as you.  You have accused almost everyone here of suffering from a mental disorder.

So do you have a point to this post?

[*bfine32*]

(02-18-2019, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Same as you.  You have accused almost everyone here of suffering from a mental disorder.

So do you have a point to this post?

No point. Just agreeing with you. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-18-2019, 05:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1.  I make the same comments about the lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry when they dupe the rubes into believing them.  Nothing anti-Semitic about them.

2.  Again, all of her comments criticize Israel, not the Jewish people.  She is railing against Zionism, not the Jewish religion.  There are Jews who agree with her that Zionism is wrong and perpetrates evil by oppressing the Palestinians.

So you don't think the tweet I posted is antisemitic?

[fredtoast]

(02-18-2019, 06:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you don't think the tweet I posted is antisemitic?

No.  Just anti-Zionist.

Like Oman, I also think what Israel does is wrong, but I am not anti-Semitic.

Like I have said many time, there are lots of Jews who are anti-Zionist.